EditorsAbout the SiteComes vs. MicrosoftUsing This Web SiteSite ArchivesCredibility IndexOOXMLOpenDocumentPatentsNovellNews DigestSite NewsRSS

10.14.13

Tim Berners-Lee is Wrong, DRM in HTML is a Very Big Deal

Posted in DRM at 9:29 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Time to fork HTML?

Tim Berners-Lee by John S. and James L. Knight Foundation
Source: Original from John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, modified by Techrights

Summary: The Web’s founder, Tim Berners-Lee, now actively defends the copyright cartel, only to find loud opposition even from his biggest and more prominent fans

Tim Berners-Lee is quickly losing credibility and he has nobody else to blame. He actively echoes Hollywood talking points or at least Hollywood’s apologists, to whom a copyright monopoly or cartel is perfectly acceptable if not essential.

“It’s that time of the year again,” writes iopkh.” Time to remind the media that there are no such things as Nobel prizes in astrology, professional wrestling or economics.” Here is Cory Doctorow speaking out his mind again, urging Mozilla to tackle DRM like it already tackles Flash, namely:

Mozilla’s Shumway project, an attempt to create a replacement Flash plug-in that uses HTML5, might ever so slightly placate those barracking for the latter. Previously Shumway has only been available as a separate extension, but it recently made its way into Firefox’s nightly builds, hinting at the prospect of mainline inclusion somewhere down the line.

Glyn Moody, a vocal fan of Tim Berners-Lee, has become quite a notable opposer of his stance of DRM in HTML5. He raises some very good points:

Tim Berners-Lee on Why HTML5 “Needs” DRM

[...]

That’s an extremely odd comment, since it divides up the online world up into active creators and passive consumers. That’s precisely the framing that the copyright industry adopts in an attempt to minimise the rights of Internet users, and to belittle their role.

[...]

Putting users first is great, but this sets up a false dichotomy between those who “like to watch big-budget movies at home” and those who want an open Web, as if the former must lose if the latter win. But it’s ridiculous to suggest that companies like Netflix will stop streaming video over the Internet if the Web does not include DRM. It may do it with proprietary Web plugins, or it might even insist that people use standalone code, but that’s not a problem – it is exactly how it’s been done in the past.

Moreover, the open Web will exist and thrive even if some people choose to use proprietary code, just as open source thrives despite the existence of some closed-source applications. The only people who might conceivably lose out if DRM isn’t included in HTML is the W3C, who won’t be able to control exactly how those non-Web parts operate. But that’s true now, anyway, and I can’t believe that the W3C is so power crazed that it wants to sacrifice the open Web solely to extend its empire a little further.

The longer this goes on for, the worse Tim Berners-Lee’s reputation will get. He hopefully understands this by now. The NSA already threatens forking of the Web. Tim Berners-Lee might do the same with his stance. If not a fork, then an alternative might be put forth. There were several Web-like prototypes preceding Tim Berners-Lee’s. Although some were better, they never quite caught on. Tim Berners-Lee and the W3C may feel like they have no competition, so they think that they can get away with DRM.

Share this post: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • co.mments
  • DZone
  • email
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine
  • Print
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Facebook

If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

Pages that cross-reference this one

7 Comments

  1. Michael said,

    October 15, 2013 at 11:03 pm

    Gravatar

    So what is your solution? How do individuals and companies protect their IP?

    Why not have a built in standard and not a bunch of plugins people need to download?

    XFaCE Reply:

    >Why not have a built in standard and not a bunch of plugins people need to download?

    Indeed, and while we’re at it, why not breed unicrons and fairies for everyone.

    Hey Michael, you realize that this “plugin-free” solution still depends on what are essentially proprietary plugins (“Content Decryption Modules”) right? Please explain to me how this solves the problems of relying on proprietary extensions.

    >So what is your solution? How do individuals and companies protect their IP?

    Well that depends. What exactly are we protecting? Protecting from whom? What is IP in a practical sense? What about studies that show positive effects from file sharing that’s violating “protection” as you put it? Why do we need law-based and tech-based solutions? Why are tech-based solutions protected under law? What is the evidence of a broad negative effect?

    But maybe I’m too nuanced here. I should instead follow your example and use loaded questions to paint the world in black and white. “How do good honest citizens protect themselves from that stupid idiot troll Michael harassing them on the Internet?” See, I can do it too.

    Michael Reply:

    Why not have a built in standard and not a bunch of plugins people need to download?

    Indeed, and while we’re at it, why not breed unicrons and fairies for everyone.

    Do you think standards are impossible to develop? If not I do not see your point?

    Hey Michael, you realize that this “plugin-free” solution still depends on what are essentially proprietary plugins (“Content Decryption Modules”) right? Please explain to me how this solves the problems of relying on proprietary extensions.

    HTML and CSS are standardized (largely – there are, of course, browser-specific extensions). JPGs and GIFs and PNGs allow for standardized image types to be views in any browser. TCP-IP is standardized. Many other things are to allow for the Internet and the Web to even exist as they do. It makes sense to also standardize on a set of multi-media and security features. Why not continue the advancement that has been happening in the tech industry? Of course, as newer technologies come about the standards will get better – just as PNGs were not that common a decade ago but now are.

    So what is your solution? How do individuals and companies protect their IP?

    Well that depends. What exactly are we protecting? Protecting from whom? What is IP in a practical sense? What about studies that show positive effects from file sharing that’s violating “protection” as you put it? Why do we need law-based and tech-based solutions? Why are tech-based solutions protected under law? What is the evidence of a broad negative effect?

    We are not talking about the effect of people violating IP – we are talking about people’s choice to protect their own IP. Maybe you think it is a bad idea to do so. Fine. For that matter, I produce educational videos and sell them – I do not use any DRM scheme with the DVDs I sell. I even tell people how to make copies to their hard drive or other media. But this is my *choice*. I believe in choice and freedom. I am very much against Stallman and the like who want (at least as an ideal) to eliminate freedom and choice and to force all people to do as I do with their IP.

    But maybe I’m too nuanced here. I should instead follow your example and use loaded questions to paint the world in black and white. “How do good honest citizens protect themselves from that stupid idiot troll Michael harassing them on the Internet?” See, I can do it too.

    My question is a simple one: if you do not like a built in standard what do you suggest instead? Requiring people to download proprietary solutions? I do not think that should be eliminated, but I think it would make things better for technology standards to continue to advance. Does not mean web developers should be forced to use these standards – after all, I *can* have all the images on my site be in PSD format if I *want*, but it sure makes it a lot easier for developers and users if we are have common standards to follow. Why this offends you so much is anyone’s guess. I sincerely hope that if you chose to respond you can do so without name calling and other immature acts.

    XFaCE Reply:

    Or to use another example, “How do we prevent the discrimination of Christianity from gay marriage legalization?”

    Michael Reply:

    What discrimination? I do not follow what you are saying. Is someone being forced into a gay marriage? If they are then I would agree it is wrong. It sounds, however, like you are suggesting giving others freedom and choice is somehow an offensive thing to you.

    XFaCE Reply:

    I was giving a further example of a loaded question that assumes a reality, like you did in the previous post. You know, the whole “using loaded questions to paint the world in black and white.” The fact you miss that this was an example of such a question and not a statement of opinion is really reflective of your strawmaning.

    Michael Reply:

    What loaded question?

    I am merely noting that whining about standards without having a good alternative is not good. Roy and those who are against standards should come up with a *solution* (even if just in idea form – I am not saying they must implement it), not just whine about the solutions are others are coming up with.

    I am pushing for freedom and for people to go with any shade of gray they want. I am fighting against the idea that any ideas but mine must be bad. That is what Stallman pushes and what Roy repeats – use their ideas or it is immoral. No: Stallman’s GPL is a great license, but it should be a *choice*. People should be free to protect their own property in multiple ways.

    Having standards for HTML and CSS and image formats and video formats and audio formats and networking formats and IP protection all make sense (and many have already been implemented), but people should not be forced to use them and there should be freedom to improve on them and offer updated ideas that can become new standards. Nothing black and white about that at all.

    Calling this “black and white” thinking without being able to explain how or why merely shows a lack of understanding on your part. You seem to have a strong desire to disagree but no real content to use with your disagreement. Add to that your silly insults, accusations, and engagement in name calling only serves to make you look lost and immature. Please try to raise the level of your discourse.

    Thank you.

What Else is New


  1. CEN and CENELEC Agreement With the EPO Shows That It's Definitely the European Commission's 'Department'

    With headlines such as “EPO to collaborate on raising SEP awareness” it is clear to see that the Office lacks impartiality and the European Commission cannot pretend that the EPO is “dafür bin ich nicht zuständig” or “da kenne ich mich nicht aus”



  2. Decisions Made Inside the European Patent Organisation (EPO) Lack Credibility Because Examiners and Judges Lack Independence

    The lawless, merciless, Mafia-like culture left by Battistelli continues to haunt judges and examiners; how can one ever trust the Office (or the Organisation at large) to deliver true justice in adherence or compliance with the EPC?



  3. Team UPC Buries Its Credibility Deeper in the Grave

    The three Frenchmen at the top do not mention the UPC anymore; but those who promote it for a living (because they gambled on leveraging it for litigation galore) aren't giving up and in the process they perpetuate falsehoods



  4. The EPO Has Sadly Taken a Side and It's the Patent Trolls' Side

    Abandoning the whole rationale behind patents, the Office now led for almost a year by António Campinos prioritises neither science nor technology; it's all about granting as many patents (European monopolies) as possible for legal activity (applications, litigation and so on)



  5. Where the USPTO Stands on the Subject of Abstract Software Patents

    Not much is changing as we approach Easter and software patents are still fool's gold in the United States, no matter if they get granted or not



  6. Links 19/3/2019: Jetson/JetBot, Linux 5.0.3, Kodi Foundation Joins The Linux Foundation, and Firefox 66

    Links for the day



  7. Links 18/3/2019: Solus 4, Linux 5.1 RC1, Mesa 18.3.5, OSI Individual Member Election Won by Microsoft

    Links for the day



  8. Microsoft and Its Patent Trolls Continue Their Patent War, Including the War on Linux

    Microsoft is still preying on GNU/Linux using patents, notably software patents; it wants billions of dollars served on a silver platter in spite of claims that it reached a “truce” by joining the Open Invention Network and joining the LOT Network



  9. Director Iancu Generally Viewed as a Lapdog of Patent Trolls

    As Director of the Office, Mr. Iancu, a Trump appointee, not only fails to curb patent trolls; he actively defends them and he lowers barriers in order to better equip them with bogus patents that courts would reject (if the targets of extortion could afford a day in court)



  10. Links 17/3/2019: Google Console and IBM-Red Hat Merger Delay?

    Links for the day



  11. To Team UPC the Unified Patent Court (UPC) Has Become a Joke and the European Patent Office (EPO) Never Mentions It Anymore

    The EPO's frantic rally to the very bottom of patent quality may be celebrated by obedient media and patent law firms; to people who actually produce innovative things, however, this should be a worrisome trend and thankfully courts are getting in the way of this nefarious agenda; one of these courts is the FCC in Germany



  12. Links 16/3/2019: Knoppix Release and SUSE Independence

    Links for the day



  13. Stopping António Campinos and His Software Patents Agenda (Not Legal in Europe) Would Require Independent Courts

    Software patents continue to be granted (new tricks, loopholes and buzzwords) and judges who can put an end to that are being actively assaulted by those who aren't supposed to have any authority whatsoever over them (for decisions to be impartially delivered)



  14. The Linux Foundation Needs to Speak Out Against Microsoft's Ongoing (Continued) Patent Shakedown of OEMs That Ship Linux

    Zemlin actively thanks Microsoft while taking Microsoft money; he meanwhile ignores how Microsoft viciously attacks Linux using patents, revealing the degree to which his foundation, the “Linux Foundation” (not about Linux anymore, better described as Zemlin’s PAC), has been compromised



  15. Links 15/3/2019: Linux 5.0.2, Sublime Text 3.2

    Links for the day



  16. The EPO and the USPTO Are Granting Fake Patents on Software, Knowing That Courts Would Reject These

    Office management encourages applicants to send over patent applications that are laughable while depriving examiners the freedom and the time they need to reject these; it means that loads of bogus patents are being granted, enshrined as weapons that trolls can use to extort small companies outside the courtroom



  17. CommunityBridge is a Cynical Microsoft-Funded Effort to Show Zemlin Works for 'Community', Not Microsoft

    After disbanding community participation in the Board (but there are Microsoft staff on the Board now) the "Linux Foundation" (or Zemlin PAC) continues to take Microsoft money and polishes or launders that as "community"



  18. Links 14/3/2019: GNOME 3.32 and Mesa 19.0.0 Released

    Links for the day



  19. EPO 'Results' Are, As Usual, Not Measured Correctly

    The supranational monopoly, a monopoly-granting authority, is being used by António Campinos to grant an insane amount of monopolies whose merit is dubious and whose impact on Europe will be a net negative



  20. Good News Everyone! UPC Ready to Go... in 2015!

    Benoît Battistelli is no longer in Office and his fantasy (patent lawyers' fantasy) is as elusive as ever; Team UPC is trying to associate opposition to UPC with the far right (AfD) once again



  21. Links 13/3/2019: Plasma 5.15.3,Chrome 73 and Many LF Press Releases

    Links for the day



  22. In the Age of Trumpism EFF Needs to Repeatedly Remind Director Iancu That He is Not a Judge and He Cannot Ignore the Courts

    The nonchalance and carelessness seen in Iancu's decision to just cherry-pick decisions/outcomes (basically ignoring caselaw) concerns technologists, who rightly view him as a 'mole' of the litigation 'industry' (which he came from)



  23. Links 12/3/2019: Sway 1.0 Released, Debian Feuds Carry On

    Links for the day



  24. Microsoft is Complaining About Android and Chrome OS (GNU/Linux) Vendor Not Paying for Microsoft Patents (Updated)

    Microsoft, which nowadays does the patent shakedown against GNU/Linux by proxy, is still moaning about companies that don’t pay ‘protection’ money (grounds for antitrust action or racketeering investigation)



  25. Watchtroll Has Redefined "Trolls" to Mean Those Who Oppose Software Patents (and Oppose Trolls), Not Those Who Leverage These for Blackmail Alone

    The controversial change to 35 U.S.C. § 101 guidance is being opposed by the public (US citizens who oppose American software patents), so patent maximalists like Janal Kalis (“PatentBuddy”) and extremists like Gene Quinn (Watchtroll) want us to believe that the public is just “EFF” and cannot think for itself



  26. EPO's Latest 'Results' Show That António Campinos Has Already Given Up on Patent Quality and is Just Another Battistelli

    The patent-granting machine that the EPO has become reports granting growth of unrealistic scale (unless no proper examination is actually carried out)



  27. Links 11/3/2019: Linux 5.0.1, Audacity 2.3.1, GNU Coreutils 8.31

    Links for the day



  28. US Patent Law Currently Not Changing Much and Software Patents Are Still in Limbo

    Surveying the news, as we still meticulously do (even if we don't write about it), it seems clear that American courts hardly tolerate software patents and proponents of such patents are losing their voice (or morale)



  29. EPO Examiner: “I Have Been Against Software Patents and Eventually 3/4 of My Job is Examining Software Patent Applications.”

    Overworked examiners aren't being given the time, the tools and the freedom to reject patents, based on prior art, patent scope and so on; it is beginning to resemble a rubber-stamping operation, not an examining authority



  30. Europe Will Pay a High Price for Software Patents Advocacy by António Campinos in Europe's Patent-Granting Authority

    EPO President António Campinos — like Iancu at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) — is still promoting software patents in Europe even though such patents are clearly detrimental to Europe’s interests


CoPilotCo

RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channel: Come and chat with us in real time

CoPilotCo

Recent Posts